Has the US awakened the sleeping giant?

[oneniltothearsenal]

About that, he was right. About the rise of a Trump figure. And about language, too, even though those who, no offense, aren't qualified, disagree. I.e., either a linguist of some kind or someone who has studied it personally for enough time to know what they are talking about even generally. Otherwise "so and so said otherwise" and the "discipline went a different way".

Not really the case. His position is the truthful one re poverty of stimulus (and the only scientifically explanatory one). Also there's the social study "manufacturing consent" (genius).

Right about a lot.To be right about one of these things of such magnitude (especially the books) would be a career by itself.

Lesser achievements get nobel prizes. Of course, the nobel is political and cheap as Sarte knew.

If, by language you mean UG, then no, Chomsky was not right at all. A lot of research in cognitive linguistics essentially debunks Chomsky's UG. Lakoff's view of language really had much more compelling evidence in favor of it. So i wouldn't say Chomsky was right there.

 

[neverdie]

If, by language you mean UG, then no, Chomsky was not right at all. A lot of research in cognitive linguistics essentially debunks Chomsky's UG. Lakoff's view of language really had much more compelling evidence in favor of it. So i wouldn't say Chomsky was right there.

Familiar with both and would disagree. The general UG is correct, the strong one was revised.

 

[RoyH1]

Do they say they have a ‘right’ to a sphere of influence or are they saying that that is just the reality of the world as it is now?

Those are two incredibly different statements. And I feel like people who say the latter often get their words twisted to make it out they’re saying the former.

I don't know , you tell me from this little extract from his here. Mostly the second I suppose, but the way he simply refuses to allow "great power politics" to be second to individual countries wishes makes me pause for a second

Mearsheimer interview on Ukraine

 

[Kinsella]

This NATO expansionism nonsense boils my piss as well. Lads like yourself and @Kinsella trying to victim blame smaller countries for wanting to sign up to something that can help protect them from the bully on their doorsteps, or lay blame at the door of bigger countries or organisations who see value in providing protection to smaller nations.

These arguments are akin to suggesting criminals only commit crimes because we created prisons and police forces to antagonise them in the first place. It's bollocks and always has been.

Russia are to blame for aggression in Georgia, in Ukraine and theoretically in Poland, Hungary or the then Czech Republic, and Russia alone. Bullies need to be stood up to - not placated and pussy footed around. NATO could add every country that borders Russia and so long as the West stood firm and united, they wouldn't have had the balls to do anything about it until they developed their own pet US president. Now that they have that and a West divided, who knows what they'll have the audacity to do - the logic and reasoning of the past several decades no longer bears weight.

Thanks for the mention but I don't blame Ukraine.

 

[Zehner]

Chomsky, et al

US is inviting disaster (like Russia's invasion of Ukraine, hypothetically mentioned by him a few times over a vast amount of work and a long time ago) by doing what they're doing. Same with Meirsheimer and a few others. These are the outliers who did predict it insofar as it was predicted. Not many but some very credible cross spectrum political people.

But their criteria isn't politically correct. NATO expansionism. So (until peace happens and the real history begins) this is just shouted out or blocked out or "not again" (when it will feature very well in the actual histories worth reading regardless of how high or low it is weighted).

Russia never had to feat NATO as long as it stayed peaceful because nobody would attack a nuclear superpower without very good reasons. And that's the big problem with this kind of reasoning: The threat NATO countries at Russia's borders pose to them translates to a) their lifestyle showing the Russian population that a better life is possible and b) NATO powers like the US getting hold of strategically important positions which would only matter if Russia itself attacked another country out of imperialistic interests or to undermine a). There is no saving grace in that.

If you think a free and prospering society at your doorstep is a problem because it could cause unrest in your own population, that tells you all you need to know about the kind of government we're talking about.

 

[stefan92]

I'll mark this in my calendar. A post from @Zehner I fully agree with.